About a week before Stephen Harper went to visit the Governor General, television stations began running the Conservative Party’s campaign advertisements.
As I recall, the TV ads showed a farmer, a student, a veteran, a homemaker and others. They all had comments about this “straight ahead” guy, who “looked out for our interests.” One said he was “approachable.” And they all seemed to agree on one important asset he possessed above all else.
They told viewers the Prime Minister is a “real family man.”
With the federal election now in full swing and with the five party leaders leapfrogging across Canada to promote their parties’ policies, I certainly expect to see plenty of photo opportunities about the economy, the environment, the Afghanistan mission and even leadership capabilities. But family? Since when does having a family make one a better prime minister?
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never considered someone’s family status as a reason for voting a politician into or out of office. I’m not electing a family! I’m electing a candidate who represents my concerns about national issues, who considers my constituency’s interests and who most closely espouses my philosophy of governance. Frankly, a candidate’s family should have little or nothing to do with my decision in the voting booth on Oct. 14.
The history of Canadian prime ministers illustrates the point. William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada’s longest serving prime minister, didn’t rely on family for votes. He had no wife in the limelight. No kids. In fact, the only family member we came to know was his long dead mother, with whom he is alleged to have made spiritual contact in her afterlife. And for nearly as long, Canada’s 15th serving prime minister was a swinging single.
Pierre Trudeau seemed all the more attractive for his lack of family. In fact, he generated plenty of excitement – or so-called “Trudeau-mania” – as a bachelor until Margaret Sinclair came into his life in 1971. Family had little or nothing to do with electing a Canadian prime minister in the 1940s or the 1970s.
No. I’m afraid this focus on the family is just another example of the Canadian spin doctors taking a page out of the American political playbook. Look at the two federal circuses we endured on TV during the summer leadership conventions. First it was the Democrats’ Barack Obama parading out his picture-perfect wife and family in Denver. The next week in Minneapolis, it was the Republicans’ Sarah Palin and the endless showcasing of her hockey-mom kids and her NRA-loving husband, not to mention her about-to-be son-in-law for her 17-year-old pregnant daughter. By the end of those two weeks, I had so severely overdosed on “family values,” that I was nearly ready for an episode of Ozzy Osbourne’s dysfunctional TV family.
The worst part of this “family man” campaign is that it’s contagious. On Monday night, it was Olivia Chow strolling on camera with husband Jack Layton to illustrate how much a family guy the NDP leader is. Then, in the Tuesday newspapers, it was the Liberals’ turn to remind us how lovable Stéphane Dion is. Out came the Internet website – “This is Dion” – designed to offset the Conservatives’ peek inside 24 Sussex. The Internet site shows the Opposition leader skiing, fishing, snowshoeing and enjoying quality time with his wife and daughter, and, oh yes, his faithful dog Kyoto.
Let’s get real here, folks. This election is not about how wholesome we expect our politicians to be. It’s about salvaging manufacturing in Ontario, preventing the total disintegration of the polar ice cap, repairing the country’s worn-out infrastructure, bringing Canada’s soldiers home after serving with valour and distinction in Afghanistan, and yes, helping to serve Canadian families – not the leaders’ families – with improved health care, quality education, opportunities for the best jobs and a cleaner environment.
By the way, if all this country’s prime-ministers-in-waiting are such wonderful family men, why can’t they give every member of the federal political family an equal say? Apparently, three of the mainstream party leaders – all men – have determined that Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the TV debates in October. I would have thought Canadian leaders had gotten past male chauvinism by now. I would have thought their sense of family and democracy included all views reflected in the House of Commons.
Or are their true family values stuck in the dark ages?
